Possible Admins
''Possible Admins & Buerocrats '' Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected. About administrators The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions arepublicly logged, and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages and files. About RfA and its process The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied. ;Nomination standards :There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and being trusted by other editors. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates; discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, one could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs. :If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption or coaching by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RFA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin. ;Nominating :To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination. ;Notice of RfA :Many candidates display the on their userpages. ;Discussion and decision :Nominations remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. :Consensus at RFA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold. As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80% approval pass; most of those below 70% fail; the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucratic discretion (and in some cases further discussion). In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. While the Neutral comments are ignored for calculating the RfA's percentage, they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. :If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within 3 months, but many editors prefer to wait several months before reapplying. ::A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. They may also close nominations early if a promotion is unlikely and leaving open the application has no likely benefit. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests. :In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. ;Expressing opinions :While every Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, only editors with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote". The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". :To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Every Wikipedian—including those who do not have an account, or are not logged in ("anons")—is welcome to write in the comments section and the questions sections. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on-topic. :The ‘requests for adminship’ process attracts many Wikipedians. Some editors may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA !voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA, especially 'oppose' comments on an uncommon principle or which may feel like "baiting", consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have considerable experience, and they are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Current Nominations for buerocratship none Current Nominations for Chat Moderator none Current nominations for adminship Current month is January-Febuary 2012 Purge page cache if nominations have not updated. ---- GiantSnowman Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (60/0/0); Scheduled to end 15:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Nomination GiantSnowman (talk ·''' contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a pleasure to be able to nominate one of our most prolific, diligent and sincere editors, GiantSnowman. I came across GiantSnowman almost 12 months ago when his request for adminship was put forward to the community for approval. The request was not accepted then by the community, and I was one of those who had opposed the RfA initially before changing my opinion. A year since then, I have seen GiantSnowman not only address the issues that arose at the previous RfA but also ensure that his contributions have continued at a pace more prolific than ever before. GiantSnowman has been with us since February 2006, has placed in close to 70,000 edits; and 28,000 of those edits have come since the past RfA in varied areas of our project, providing evidence of his passion to contribute relentlessly to our project’s advancement. This editor has created over 3,000 articles, and continues to unflinchingly add to the knowledge base that we wish to present to the world. If the community accepts this candidacy, this able and extremely helpful editor would be a potent benefit for our project’s administration, especially in the areas related to BLPs. I hope that the community too views GiantSnowman as being capable for being entrusted with the tools and accepts this request for administration. Thank you.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wifione '''Wifione] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wifione Message] 18:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC) ;Co-nomination At the previous RfA, I supported Giant Snowman on the basis of an excellent record and a good understanding of basic policies. But I recognized that there was some basis for views expressed that some of his answers there were not as fully developed as they ought to be, and took insufficient regard for all of the possibilities. I supported him because I thought he would learn; I think he has now clearly shown that he has indeed learned, and I anticipate that the results of this RfA will prove that this is recognized. I'm glad he persisted and I look forward to him as a colleague. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC) :Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: *Many thanks to both editors for their kind words & faith in me. I think I have become a better and more-knowledgeable editor since last year's failed RFA, and have taken on board many of the concerns raised there. I hope the rest of the community feels the same. GiantSnowman 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Questions for the candidate Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants: :1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in? ::A: My main area of work on Wikipedia is creating BLPs - over 3,000 and counting - and so I would like to initially work with BLPPRODs, as I spent quite a bit of time (working alongside other editors) getting rid of masses of articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Full list, either by finding reliable sources and verifying notability, or by tagging them for deletion. I would also like to work with AfDs as that is where most of my past experience has been. I have previously contributed to WP:ANI and (briefly and recently) WP:BLPN, and I would like to expand upon this on both noticeboards. Given time and experience I would hope to spread my skills as far as possible. GiantSnowman 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? ::A: I am proud of every contribution I make - that's why I do it - but my best contributions are in creation - primarily articles, but also categories, templates, disambiguation pages etc. It has been great to see articles I have started help encourage others to contribute to Wikipedia - "build it and they will come" is somewhat of a philosophy of mine. Using this as a base, I also have enjoyed helping as many new editors as possible with their queries - I remember what it was like to be a new editor on here six years ago - and gentle encouragement and a friendly hello works wonders. GiantSnowman 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? ::A: Never an out-and-out conflict, but yes I have had polite disagreements with other editors, as I'm sure we all have. If I've ever felt stressed or frustrated (very rare) then I have taken a break to calm down; otherwise I deal with it by remaining calm, showing respect, listening and talking to them. I always use talk pages, and should I need to, go to a WikiProject or noticeboard for wider community input. GiantSnowman 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ;Additional question from Salvio giuliano :4. What is your opinion of WP:NLT and how would you enforce it, as an admin? ::A: The first step is to find out whether there is actually a legal threat. Mistakes in communication do occur sometimes and administrators should double check the existence of a legal threat. If a legal threat was actually made, the user should be blocked in order to prevent the possibility of further disruption. I would encourage the blocked user to use their talk page to discuss the matter, to civilly detail their concerns and issues, so that we can quickly and calmly sort out the situation - and take action in genuine cases. I'll involve other administrators through the ANI apart from educating the editor about methods to get facts corrected in future situations. I would also advise the editor on how to resolve any standing dispute through the dispute resolution process if the issue was about the same. GiantSnowman 16:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ;Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards :5. Can an established User( example blocked for 7 days) remove a block notice from his talk page while he is blocked (before the block ends ) Please note not all admins place block notices on all users they block but is registered in the block log. Some say block notices should not be removed while blocked but in many cases I find blocked users do not get block notices.Can you state the policy here regarding removal of block notice ? ::A: As per this project content guideline, "a number of important matters may not be removed by the user ... including relevant information about a currently active block or ban." So no, a blocked user may not remove a current block notice. GiantSnowman 17:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ;Additional question from Bluerasberry :6. In your last RfA a lot of people asked you about notability criteria. Forget what happened before, but please now describe the circumstances under which an article which does not meet WP:Vbut which has a subject meeting WP:N should remain a part of Wikipedia. That is, can you explain what should happen if everyone agrees that an article's subject meets notability criteria but the article does not meet verifiability criteria? ::A: An article cannot meet WP:N if it does not meet WP:V; notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. If a claim to notability cannot be verified, then it is not notable and does not merit an article on Wikipedia. Should I encounter such an article (i.e. meeting notability criteria but not verifiability criteria) I would tag it as such using , and follow the procedure set out at WP:FAILN. GiantSnowman 17:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ;Additional question from StephenBuxton :7. I appreciate that CSD isn't in your interest as much as BLP and AFD, but I think this exercise should help highlight your knowledge. Could you please have a go at these CSD exercises, and provide a link to your answers? ::A: My answers are as follows: *'A tory liar': R3 is meant for redirects with implausible typos and misnomers, but I don't believe that people would type 'A tory liar' to get to Jeffrey Archer. This seems like a BLP attack and should be deleted immediately under G10. The editor's past contributions should also be double checked as blocking admin appears to have missed this redirect while blocking the editor. *'Deben High School': A7 does not apply to schools. I'll remove the CSD tag, check for reliable sources on the subject, and try to improve the article with any material that is verifiable, apart from relevantly categorising and templating the same. If no reliable sources are available (and I'm assuming here that you've given this example not basing it on Deben High School, which already exists), then I would take it to AfD. I would welcome the user, guide then about our editing policies, and check their other contributions. *'Malcom Hardee': It's a biography; I'll check the claims mentioned. Ig said claims are verifiable, then the attack CSD template is incorrect and should be removed. I'll build the bio with the material that is verifiable, ensuring that exceptional claims are supported by exceptional sources. If it is unverifiable, then the page should be deleted as an attack page. Malcom Hardee which already exists throws weight behind my initial argument. Of course, welcome the creating user, check other edits of the user, and guide him relevantly. *'New article' with just hello written: G3 is incorrect. I'll delete it under G2, as a test page, and also welcome/guide/check contribs. *'Wizzy Wig the Clown': Importance is indicated - appearances on TV and radio - but that does not mean that they are notable. I would try and see if the claims are verifiable, and if notability cannot be be verified, or they appear to fail WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. then I would take it to AFD. As well, the creating editor's name could be a conflict of interest under WP:UPOL. I'll suitably guide the user on the username as well as the conflict of interest that could be there. I'll get a peer review of other admins more experienced in handling CoI editing situations at COIN and perhaps also check in at UAA. *'Athur the great': A7 seems appropriate for deletion, as their is no indication of significance. I would also also welcome/guide/check contribs. *'Sudar Barash': A7 is inappropriate, as a credible claim of significance has been made in the BLP. I would reove the template, search for reliable sources to verify the claims, build the BLP, and leave a note at BLPN too. If no verifiable sources for claims of notability are found, I would explore the alternative options, including deletion. The user name is a company name, with possible links to the subject given the engineering link, and so I would get editors experienced at handling such issues at UAA/COIN, as well as welcome/guide/check contribs. GiantSnowman 11:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC) ;Additional question from Epeefleche :8. Over 90 percent of a certain editor's AfD nominations result in closes of "Keep". Other editors have discussed this with him, but he continues to nominate articles for deletion, based on what he says are his good faith understanding and beliefs. What would you do, if anything, to address the issue? ::A: I will first check whether or not they are truly bad faith nominations, or whether they are nominations simply based on a misinterpretation of our policies or guidelines. If the former, and something does appear to be amiss, then I would also try and encourage the editor in question to discuss the matter. Should they ignore me, or continue to make bad-faith nominations, if I find that no progress is being made, then I'll follow the procedural policy laid down at WP:DISPUTE, which seems to me to be an excellent way to engage the responsible editor constructively, yet moving towards a resolution. GiantSnowman 11:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC) ;Additional question from My76Strat :9''' Please tell me why you edited this comment by Voceditenore to appear it was posted by you? [1] ::'''A: It was an edit conflict which I rectified here. GiantSnowman 16:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC) ;Additional question from Skinwalker :10. Have you discussed this RfA off-wiki before submitting it? If so, can you briefly summarize each discussion? ::A: Yes, I discussed the RFA before submitting it. Or rather, my nominator had discussed the RFA with me before nominating me. The first discussion was an off-shoot to an offer to nominate me by Wifione last year - a pleasant surprise, I must say. I had turned down Wifione initially, to allow me to deal with the stresses & time-consumption of the Christmas holidays. After the holiday period was over, I wrote to Wifione on his talk page, stating that I was willing to be nominated; Wifione later contacted me by e-mail to inform me that DGG could be co-nomming me in the RFA. It was a privilege and I responded thanking Wifione. I've still not been able to thank DGG appropriately - other than briefly on his talk page - as I've had zero off-wiki communication with him. Wifione then again contacted me saying that the nom statement was ready and had been posted on my RFA page and that DGG would be adding the co-nom in some time and that I should be ready with the answers to the mandatory questions. Wifione also gave me advice on the fact that there is no guarantee that any RFA should succeed and that even though Wifione expected me to be seen positively by the community, I should always be open and prepared for the RFA failing. Wifione finally informed me through e-mail that the RFA page was ready and that I should transclude it whenever I felt comfortable; I waited a few days, until I knew I would have a week or so of freedom, which I told him about. GiantSnowman 19:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC) :11. This is an intentionally open-ended question. For the sake of expediency, let's stipulate that the situations listed at Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy should be handled privately, since there is broad consensus that these cases should not be discussed on-wiki. Excepting these specific situations, what are your thoughts regarding transparency on Wikipedia? ::A: Wikipedia is a community, based on collaboration, where respect, trust, and honesty drive the urges and commitment of a number of very talented and enthusiastic volunteers. Those are principles I hold dear in real life, and on Wikipedia as well. But for these principles to be effective, transparency is a critical and crucial component. The Wikipedia project, where voluntary editors from various communities interact in one melting pot, is strengthened by this focus too, with the logging of each and every editing action allowing increasing levels of responsibility given to editors, to be combined with similarly matched levels of accountability; transparency is also the main, core value of the Wikimedia Foundation. Yet, there is a balance that one has to draw. Despite the strong focus on maintaining transparency, I do understand and appreciate that within such a vast project, there would be justifiable pockets of action that merit the exercising of non-transparency. Some of these areas are obvious and you have alluded to such areas in your question - some to admin actions where they might be deleting copyright infringements or attack pages or attack edits or outing information etc.; some to the Arbcom deliberations; and some more to office actions and similar issues. My view is that in most of these areas, the exercising of non-transparency goes a long way to ensure that the project is protected and our editing pillars do not get compromised. This judicious mix of transparency with non-transparency is what I feel makes our focus credible and effective. GiantSnowman 19:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC) ;Additional question from Tom Morris :12. In your previous RfA, you said you are "supremely confident in your abilities as an admin". Do you believe modesty is a beneficial quality in a Wikipedia administrator? ::A: To be honest, it's pretty embarrasing to read such a boastful, even cocky, statement that I made a year ago, and it's not something I wish to be remembered for. With respect to the question, I feel that yes, administrators should aim to be models of civility and modesty, and should ensure that their actions and statements do not convey anything to the contrary.GiantSnowman 09:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ;Additional questions from User:B :13. As you most likely know, administrators are not permitted to block users with whom they are "involved". What does "involved" mean to you? Consider this scenario: You block a user for 3RR based on a report at AN3. He immediately contests the block on the grounds that you are an "involved" editor, pointing to a debate from some time ago in which the two of you held opposite views. (You had forgotten about the debate and did not make the connection until he pointed it out.) What would you do? --B (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ::A: For me, 'involved' means exactly what our policy says - areas where I "may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes where I have been a party to or have strong feelings about." I'm sorry for quoting directly from the policy, but I believe that the policy contains a very crucial perspective which some editors might miss. It is not just about whether you''believe you are (or are not) involved - it is more about how the ''community perceives your level of involvement; that is how I understand being involved. I hope this answers the first part of your query. In the scenario you have given, should another user that I blocked at 3RR bring out a past involvement that I had accidentally forgotten, I'll immediately request the assistance of other administrators at ANI, giving them a complete description of the sequence of events, unblock the blocked editor and hand over the issue to the other administrators. Going to ANI, I believe, would also reduce the chance of further edit-warring disruption by said blocked editor, as more admin eyes would naturally now be on the article in contention where 3RR would have taken place. GiantSnowman 16:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC) :14. You are evaluating an articles for deletion discussion for a BLP. It is known that the subject of the article desires for the article to be deleted. How much does that weigh into your decision? --B(talk) 13:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ::A: As you've not given the specifics of either the BLP in question, or how it reached AFD, I'll keep my answer somewhat general. In cases where one is evaluating deletion discussions for a BLP where the subject has requested deletion, WP:BIODEL would be an extremely relevant policy to follow. In other words, if the subject is a relatively unknown person (whom our BLP policy would address as a non-public figure), and if the deletion discussions have no rough consensus, then the discussion may be closed as delete. GiantSnowman 16:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC) :15. When thinking about our fair use policy, how do you evaluate whether an image complies with criteria #1 and #8? Suppose you are evaluating a discussion at FFD where one "side", consisting of five regular editors, asserts that an image violates criteria #1 and #8, while the other "side", consisting of 15 regular editors, opines that the image should be kept, but does not offer a convincing argument for how the image is essential to the reader's understanding of the topic? --B (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ::A: I am admittedly quite poor with images - hence why it's an area that I don't currently involve myself in; nor would I intend to deal with it in the future as an administrator. Apologies for not answering the question, but the truth is that I'm not the best person to do so. Perhaps in the future, when I've understood the image space properly, and have mastered the application of our image related policies, I'll be more comfortable in handling issues in this area...unfortunately, not now; my apologies again. GiantSnowman 16:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC) :::This is a good answer. "I don't know" is a better answer than bloviation. Being an admin does not bless us with omniscience and recognizing that is definitely a good thing. Thank you for your answers. --B (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ;Additional questions from User:Achowat :16. In regards to question 8, you gave us your course of action if the editor was editing in bad faith. What actions would you take if it was found that that same editor had been acting based on hir understanding of the Policies and Guidelines? --Achowat (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC) General comments RfAs for this user: *Links for GiantSnowman: GiantSnowman (talk ·contribs ·deleted ·count http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/sc/GiantSnowman quick ·logs ·block log ·lu ·rfar ·rfc ·rfcu ·ssp ·spi) *Edit summary usage for GiantSnowman can be found here. ---- Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.